Talk:List of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies/Archive 1

Wording

Watch the wording of your submissions - I've already had to change "no contact" (which was untrue, regarding the AUS v ITA 93rd Minute penalty), to "no illegal contact was apparent" - there was most certainly contact (note the impulse on the legs of the muscles of the Italian attacker when this "contact was made"), and just to keep it as NPOV-ish as possible, don't totally discard foul play, but use generalising words such as "apparent" etc.

Hopefully we can step around misguided wordings and aviod having this article deleted. Killfest2 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I see you made a load of edits to tha pafge. It's looking much better now and seeing as it is looking like the AFD will outcome as keep - or merge I may as well start helping with the cleanup. I made some corrections to what you wrote (grammar, rephrasing and the odd sentence that may have been construed as NPOV). What do you think of the article at the moment.

I wonder if the sections need reorganising (I mean there are some empty ones) as there seems to be a bit too many for the scope of this article. Any ideas? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar fix-ups and rephrasing of my rephrasing - it's hard for me, because a) I'm Australian, and have followed the Socceroos for about 7 years (I'm not a bandwagon-jumper), and b) GMT+10.5 means WC matches are at ungodly hours (usually 12midnight -> 4am), so I'm currently running on empty, so to speak :P

Anyways, I'm planning on expanding on the T&T coach thing (gotta read up a bit, first); I agree, the other categories have to be deleted for now, and reinstated if needed; And I reckon this shouldn't be merged, because it is really something which could ruin a whole article if it got out of hand. Because of this, I'll be keeping my eye on this article (as well as every game), and expanding/rewording edits as they come in, to make them more NPOV-ish and factual. --Killfest2 10:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added some images (currently only regarding AUS v CRO, but hopefully with a few more good pictures of other events, I can add some of different teams). Next step is to fix up the introduction, do a section on the special instructions given to referees of this WC by FIFA, as well as try and cross-reference sources that currently come from the country involved in the incident, to maintain a NPOV. I appreciate everyone's help, including tmorton166 and whoever-it-was-who-fixed-up-my-spelling for helping me make this article better.

Also, after the intro is finished, I'm going to remove the wikiformat thing at the top. Any objections, post 'em here :P --Killfest2 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (again)

AFD

{{softredirect}}

Questioned Calls

I removed some of the so-called questioned calls as they were full of weasel words and the calls were impossible to determine whether or not they should've gone the other way. Also, the citations were a bit off in terms of WP:NOR. The citation given for the Tunisa-Ukraine match is a newspaper article that actually says that the call was a matter of opinion. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi hoopydink I have t question some of your removals from "Question Calls", could you explain how you chose wihich ones to remove - there seems to be no apparent difference (especially in terms of POV) between what you left and what you took out :D. Although one of the bullet points (first one I think) I do agree with removing! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I picked this from WP:NOR by the way, I don't see that much of this is OR because it is all cited ./ referenced in news articles or on the FIFA website. Look at some of the (IMO pertitnent) points that define OR:

   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument

All of the ideas and questions raised are pointed out elsewhere in reputable news sources.... Surely the only problem with this page is the problem of NPOV - which normally only requires a rephrasing! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

• In regards to the AUS-JAP match, the article seems to be from a neutral source, BBC UK (not a Japanese or Australian hooligan rag ;)), however the quote from which one can derive the controversy is here (I assume); "Australia fell behind in circumstances which were at best soft, and at worst controversial. This quote is so ambiguous that I think interpreting it and labeling it controversial (at worst) is perhaps original research and perhaps POV.
  • I re-added the AUS-JAP match with a nonambiguous description of the controversial Japanese goal by a neutral source (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which quotes the Australian goalkeeper who in turn quotes the referee admitting his mistake to the goalkeeper. -- Mareklug ^talk 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• In regards to the CRO-AUS game, I left the bullet up in regards to the questionable call in the 7th minute due to the Brit commentator (neutral observer who's a professional soccer analyst) calling the tackle a "rugby tackle". Also, the source given here shows a clear picture of the "rugby tackle".
• I deleted the UKR-TUN bullet, even though I personally thought it a travesty that a foul was called, especially in that situation. I felt that given the citation (again neutral; US periodical), it had to be deleted per WP:NPOV, as the article cited blatantly says Whether or not it was a soft penalty is a matter of opinion.
  • I re-added the UKR-TUN match with a better quote (from Spiegel, hte German magazine). They are clear about the "dodgyness" of the call and mention a non-awarded earlier penalty kick, this time for Tunisia. -- Mareklug ^talk 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• I left the ITA-AUS match controversy because I didn't check the sources thoroughly enough. I am about to delete it on the basis that the first source given (the fifth overall in the article) is from the Sydney daily, obviously a completely biased source. The second source given (the sixth overall) doesn't mention anything about the incident in the ITA-AUS match.
• I also think that restoring the Crouch business may be in order, even though the source given is biased, it is a UK daily taking the "anti-Lions" position.

These are all my interpretations of the sources and WP policy, and although I made a good-faith effort to remain as NPOV as possible, it's very well that others may differ in their interpretations of policy in regards to the sources, which makes an article of this nature so inherently difficult to write in an encyclopedic tone. Ah, we might as well have a go of it, eh? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript, any sporting event subjectivity, especially as large a scale as the World Cup, will be difficult, if not impossible to keep NPOV. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the lead sentence from the AUS/BRA match because, on reflection, it isn'tneeded. Aus could easily have committed more fouls. ALthough it was written objectively and is fact it suggested a refereeing bias which is too NPOV IMO. Thoughts? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Japanese goal in the Australia-Japan game possibly deserves to be reinstated due to the referee supposedly commenting to the Australian players that he had made a mistake (widely reported in Japanese and Australian media) but then denying the claim (which was never mentioned in the Australian media), as this confession is a very rare event (if it did happen). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.253.18 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
  • I re-added the AUS-JAP match with a nonambiguous description of the controversial Japanese goal by a neutral source (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which quotes the Australian goalkeeper who in turn quotes the referee admitting his mistake to the goalkeeper. -- Mareklug ^talk 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• For a moment I would like to consider the NPOV aspect of this page. At the moment any incident only gets mentioned if a third neutral party declares an incident to be contraversial, thus we have the neutral party providing the NPOV. However it is possible to obtain a NPOV in other ways. For example, it would be easy to quote players, coaches or administrators from both sides to attain a NPOV (for example Hiddink and Lippi both commented on the disputed penalty in the ITA-AUS game). This is probably better in some ways, as more incidents can be included. For example, I had forgotten about some of the incidents that Italy found contraversial in the last world cup, and no neutral third party agreed with their ranting about match fixing after the match. But they did raise match fixing nonetheless, and it is interesting to compare the Italian comments in 2002 with equivalent comments from Australia in 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.253.18 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I don't think quoting players would be appropriate, as it could been seen as violating a plethora of alphabet wiki-soup, as well as players, etc. are completely unreliable. They're not neutral, in the least. Also, who would determine the middle ground between each side's comments? Any analysis would violate WP:OR. I don't know if this is possible per policy or if there's precedence, but perhaps we could create a definitive rubric or criterion for what is classified as a controversy (and a notable one, at that). This probably couldn't work on most controversial topics, but since I'd imagine most of the editors are football fans working towards a common goal, I think that there would be a good cooperation to create some sort of determination as to what can be included. If not, we can keep on editing and keep discussing on the talk page until a consensus is reached. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Added the Togo-Switzerland match. It was a call that has generally been ignored because it was from two small footballing nations that didn't have much effect on the match, but I am sure anyone from Togo would remember it.203.185.253.18 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

USA - Ghana PK

Any reason why it's not on here? It was an incredibly controversial call, and a team was knocked out because of it. It deserves to be on here.--Akaces23 10:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed it used to be here, but was removed. All sources I have seen have at least called it controversial. The BBC match report: "But referee Merk added one more twist to the first half, with a controversial penalty award. He penalised Onyewu, who appeared to win a clean header as Pimpong collapsed dramatically, and then allowed Appiah to dispatch the spot-kick." The Financial Times: "The match turned on the worst of refereeing decisions. Germany’s Markus Merk was standing in a perfect position when USA defender Oguchi Onyewu won a header against the fabulously monikered Razak Pimpong. But inexplicably Merk blew for a penalty because of a non-existent push." - Jon Stockton 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just now added this match to the article's Disputed Calls subsection, complete with the two quotes and references given above. -- Mareklug ^talk 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Jon Stockton 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But even if the penalty was not issued, the game would have been an 1-1 tie, not giving US the chance to advance to the second round.

Formatting, Citation and Selection

• Please, follow the format used previously, and not use one of your own invention.

• Also, make sure you don't add decisions which were "disputed calls" to the "errors" section. Issues need to be discussed further before the are added to the errors section, so just add them to the disputed section at the moment.

• And whoever added the:

1.2.5 Argentina vs. Ivory Coast (Second Round)

1.2.6 France vs. South Korea (Second Round)

1.2.7 Brazil vs. Ghana (Second Round)

1.2.8 France vs. Spain (Second Round)

...sections, make sure you take note of the above notes I've written. Also, get citations, otherwise they'll have to be deleted, which I'll do personally in 24 hours time if this still hasn't happened.

I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with constantly reformatting, recategorising and rewording poorly-done entries. If you're not 100% sure on how to follow the pre-described template, just post in the discussion, and one of the people who are devoting a lot of time to this section (including me, Tmorton166 and Hoopydink just to name a couple) will do it for you. --Killfest2 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Captain's rights

A team captain is permitted to ask a referee for clarification of decisions during a game - is this actually true? I have read in several sources that the only mention of the captain in the Laws says that he calls the coin toss, and that widely held beliefs that he has a special status with regard to talking to the ref are in fact not true - can anyone confirm? ChrisTheDude 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact Wikipedia's own article on Captain (football) states: It is a common misconception that the captain has some sort of special status in the Laws of the Game. This is untrue: the only official function is to participate in the coin toss prior to kick-off (for choice of ends and to determine who kicks off first) and prior to a penalty shootout. Referees will sometimes talk to the captain of a side about the side's general behaviour, but this varies depending on the officiating style of the referee. ChrisTheDude 08:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not allow to question referee's decisions, but merely ask for clarification on why a decision was made (ie. what the foul was for - dangerous play etc.). Although this isn't explicitly written down in the Laws of the Game, it is considered implied, akin to Statutory Interpretation in many legal systems. --Killfest2 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"The captain of a team has no special status or privileges under the Laws of the Game but he has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of his team." - FIFA Laws of the Game (Located in Additional Instructions for the Referee). Also, under the Q&A for the game, It makes clear that the Captain may not dissent a referees decision. The Captain may occasionally be granted the privilage to discuss a call with the official, it is most definately not akin to Statutory Interpretation. KlisterOnSkis (Formerly:207.35.67.130 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Excellent explanation, 207.35.67.130! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I did think that myself when copyeditiing the article earlier but was too lazy to do the donkey work you have done. Thank you. I've removed the reference to this non-existent "right". --Guinnog 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Can we also change the heading from "Right of Captain Nulled" to "Privilage of Captain"? I think it may be slightly more neutral. KlisterOnSkis 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Defense of Referees

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there supposedly a FIFA directive encouraging referees to call games tighter and increase enforcement of the rules? If so (and someone can find a credible source), perhaps it warrants inclusion as a possible explantion for the increased number of bookings/fouls (and help with NPOV).--128.205.153.176 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was, and there was also some sort of checklist or something...looking into it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Killfest2 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

England vs. Portugal - Removal

The person who posted this section on ENG v POR (not a user, just an IP), please note that your article has temporarily been removed for rewording ad recitation. The following, original post:-

Wayne Rooney of England was red-carded in the second half vs. Portugal after pushing away C. Ronaldo. Many feel that at most it deserved a yellow-card, but some feel it was not even a booking at all. Even more so, what makes this disgraceful is that Ronaldo and Rooney are teammates are Manchester United, and Ronaldo went out of his way to get his teammate sent off. [1]

...was too POV-ish, used generalisations (many feel etc.),and the source is biased (UK). Please don't re-add this section, as your ability to write in a POV manner is obviously clouded by your patriotism. --Killfest2 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Rooney was apparently not red-carded simply for pushing away C. Ronaldo. According to Bloomberg, this was the reason: " Rooney, playing as England's lone striker, was shown a red card in the 62nd minute after Argentine referee Horacio Elizondo ruled the Manchester United player deliberately stamped on Ricardo Carvalho's groin. Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney's club teammate, rushed to confront the referee after the foul." [2]

-- Mareklug ^talk 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there IS controversial because if Rooney had fallen over at any point during the previous few seconds to the incident when he was being blatently fouled by Portugese players he would almost certainly have got a free kick & possibly a yellow card for one of the Portugese. The referee may have been playing advantage but should have given the free kick when it was clear that no advantage had been gained & before things got out of hand. Whether Rooney deliberately trod on the players groin - well, he claims he was off balance and his foot came down (but he would say that wouldn't he). Anyway the controversy doesn't concern the sending off so much as the handling of the run up to the sending off IMO. It should have been free kick England before Rooney got fouled for the second or third time in the same run of play... Megamanic 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is, is this considered a controversial call, or just a controversial action by a player? We're reporting bad calls with the support of no-biased sources, but in my honest opinion, the referee got it right in this case, and therefore unless something comes out in the media to whip up a storm about the incident in the next few days, I reckon it should be omitted. Discuss :p --Killfest2 08:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The call is not controversial at all, as there's no doubt as to whether or not the card was appropriate; it was simply a "big" call during a very important match and possibly changed the outcome. With that, most of the commentators have been saying that the card was well-deserved and Rooney's actions were childish, thus showing his youth, etc, etc. I wouldn't include it in this article. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include this match in the article, either. The red card was not controversial, but well-earned. There were no other controversies in the match, from what I could see. -- Mareklug ^talk 11:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Could we consider the above a consensus against adding the ENG v POR match? --Killfest2 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd think as much. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronaldo did wink at the bench, though. If Crouch pulling dreadlocks gets a mention, Ronaldo winking should. Will (message me!) 07:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reckon the Crouch one should be removed, and the C. Ronaldo winking one omitted, as he could have been winking for any number of reasons - maybe he some beautiful woman suddenly appear in the technical area (just an example :P). Omit both? Discuss.

It looked to me as a "Hey, I just got one of my Man U teammates sent off! Now we can beat them on penalties again!" wink. Then again, I'm English. Will (message me!) 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and can we add this picture for the ITA vs AUS game? Please? Pretty please...:P --Killfest2 08:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Aus v Ita 4.jpg

A bit of silliness of C. Ronaldo's part does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia. As the "wink" is subjective to interpretation, anything we infer would be original research. For what it's worth, two mates and teammates competing with eachother will obviously tease the other should a call not go his way. Winking is not illegal or against fair play. Also, he could've just had something in his eye. It's too broad a stroke to paint onto this article. The Crouch bit could be debated on this page. My two cents; ulling hair is illegal, however each and every athlete willingly breaks the rules in every competition, not just football (ever been in a scrum or at the bottom of a ruck?). I don't think the Crouch "incident" should be mentioned. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the whole 'other' section on concensus. --Killfest2 00:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

<ref> and {{Cite}} tags

Why aren't <ref> and {{Cite}} tags being used to reference this article? Lets get it right and reference it properly now. MyNameIsNotBob 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As a new Wikipedian, I ask: what's the difference? Is there a Wiki page which explains the usage and effects of these tags? Because I'm in the dark on this one... --Killfest2 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the two tags I am talking about are apples and oranges in a sense. However, you can find the descriptions on these at WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. Kind regards. MyNameIsNotBob 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• reads* Thanks for following up. --Killfest2 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Officiating Less-Prominent Teams, General Concern

This section reads a bit shady. The citation given is by the Australian coach, who was quoted out of context. He was speaking right after his team got bounced out of the World Cup and obviously has sour grapes. I think the citation should be replaced, but I feel I should wait for consensus, as I could be interpreting the citation rather liberally. Also, the bit about the eight seeds receiving a surplus is a bit misleading as well. Committing few penalties is a mark of a successful team, so wouldn't one think that the teams that are seeded in the top eight have reached that level because they are disciplined and don't commit penalties. The whole section reads like a bit of a conspiracy theory, and I'd love some responses, so we can determine how to edit this section. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree, it is a bit shady, and I agree, at the moment it is too general, even with the bias that led me to add the various userboxes, including:

This user believes that diving (known by FIFA as "simulating") should be a straight red card.

...to my userpage. I'm currently writing an essay for my school's Principal Prize Essay competition about what I determine to be a conspiracy theory surrounding the Socceroos with FIFA, but many will dismiss it as merely patriotic anger, just like they should with that section. About the out-of-context quote, many people speak their minds more freely on an issue when stimulated by motion, and Guus Hiddink was one of them - he wouldn't normally say anything like that with a level head, but instead dodge the touchy subject of officials. I'm currently for Keep & Expand, ad I think that Hiddink's comment is admissible, considering he was not rambling, but expressing his Point of View in an uncharacteristically liberal way. --Killfest2 11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing from Patriotic Media

Some standing needs to be made about the use of sources. Surely no source should be used that originates from the country that the issue is involved, unless quoting a comment made by a person (as it is harder to show bias when quoting). The ridiculous sourcing of the BBC opinion article for the ENG v POR game highlighted his issue, which needs to be addressed for future inclusions. --Killfest2 11:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Argentina v Germany

I personally believe there should be something written on the melee between Argentina and Germany after the penalty shoot-out. I have heard many rumours about its cause, one which claimed it was started by Poborsky's celebration (what looks to be a NAZI salute, although it could be unintentional). -David

There is no player named Poborsky in the German national football team. Did you mean Lukas Podolski or Tim Borowski? Neither am I aware of any mention of a "Nazi salute" in German media, though reportedly Borowski motioned the Argentian players to shut up after they had shouted Spanish language insults at the German team during the penalties, which may have provoked some of the Argentian team members to use violence. Aragorn2 14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It must of been Podolski, but he's of Polish decent so I doubt he's a NAZI sympathiser.

-David

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060703/sp_wl_afp/fblwc2006gerita_060703162305 --Killfest2 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The yahoo news article is horrible! I haven't understand a thing! What is a on-pitch fracas?

Someone definitely needs to write an article on this match! [Unsigned]

"On-pitch", mean on the area of play and surrounds; "fracas", meaning melee, fight etc. --Killfest2 11:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

i was watching the game live on ESPN, and after Podolski made his penalty, he looked over near the camera and gave a little wave. It came out as a semi-Hitler wave but seemed unintentional. Besides, Podolski is a proud Pole who doesnt even sing the German national anthem agianst poland, so i doubt he'll be heiling anytime soon

Australia vs Croatia rework

Have done a rework of the Australia vs Croatia 3 yellow card blunder section. Please have a look over this for biases or spelling and grammar errors. I believe it is complete apart from a mention of the change in the official match report on the second yellow card. If someone can find a reference for that, could you add that in, or let me know and I will include it. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia vs Croatia, not Italy vs Croatia :P (you've edited your firt posting since :p)

I'll look over it for you. --Killfest2 11:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The error could potentially have led to an appeal for a match replay, had the match outcome varied while the extra player was on the field. However, due to the fact that the final score of a 2-2 draw meant that Australia remained in the 2nd place for the group, a replay was not necessary.

You need to reword this, as it's not actually the result was varied, but more if Australia was to lose and therefore not qualify for the second round.

Also, FIFA Referees Committee President Angel Maria Villar Llona strong in his defense of Poll, but had to concede that an error had occurred. should have a but after the link.

I would add these myself, but I decided to run them over with you first, as you re-wrote the section. I'll therefore let you fix them. --Killfest2 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the grammar mistake after Llona, however I am actually a little uncertain about the match replay issue. I recall reading something about a FIFA official admitting a replay could have been called or something like that, so I'd like to have that as a reference. If you could reword the claim better I'd be most appreciated. MyNameIsNotBob 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it in the morning at school (Aus Time). By the way, reading your page, I see you come from Erina, which is really ironic, as I used to come from Umina. So yeah, amazing how through a global website with hundreds of thousands of members, two people who (used to) live about 30kms from each other manage to meet up...anyways, I've finished my little ramble. Like the userbox? --Killfest2 11:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the userbox is funny, however somewhat a waste of space. But if it keeps you contributing to the project, go for it. MyNameIsNotBob 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Brasil V Australia

I think perhaps this deserves a mention, particularly the after-game arguement with Kewell and the referee , who was reported in the (australian) media as being under investigation by FIFA. (from memory) He supposedely told Kewell his world cup was over, indicating predetermination before FIFA had even considered the issue of misconduct by Kewell, of which he was later cleared.

I would also suggest the one sided penalty count of the game, but i think thats the bias talking. - DreamyBoat 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are mentioned in the Less Prominent Teams section. --Killfest2 09:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Brasil v Ghana entry

Are we sure that Adriano was offsides? I can't remember and I haven't seen any pictures or video. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And if so, was he blatantly offsides? I can't really see this as being an encyclopedic entry if it was subjective and labeled offsides by a newspaper columnist. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched the incident much later and thought he was blatantly offside. It is tricky as he was really badly offside, then moved a bit back when the ball wasn't passed to him but to someone else who was onside, but not enough to be onside again, and then later was given the ball from which he scored. There was a lot of movement, and I can see possibly why the ref missed it, but he was most certainly offside the entire time.203.185.253.18 00:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

--Macgreco 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)When the ball was passed to the right wing, Adriano was not a part of the play. Whether he was in an offside position or not at that moment is absolutely irrelevant - he could have been standing on top of the goal line even.

POR vs NED needs fleshing out

For the amount of notoriety that this match received, the section seems a bit thin and could use more quotes/sources. I believe the ref set the record for bookings in a World Cup match, which Blatter had something to say about, and match accounts are Rashomon-like in the way they vary. And it probably makes sense to combine the fair play section from farther (further?) down the page.

I'll start looking around for quotes and commentaries on the match (I believe there's a NY Times column about it), and the inconsistency of the officiating, but if anyone has relevant content to add, please do.Ytny 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ytny, that there needs to be more addressing the inconsistency. I also feel that the article seems biased towards "too many cards" whereas it's quite possible to make a strong argument that Ivanov didn't hand out enough cards early enouhgh. (7th minute tackle is debatably a red card for Serious Foul Play).

Also, it's important to note that there are sites for and against Ivanov (www.valentinivanov.com, www.ivanovvalentin.com) and a link from the for site shows a newspaper article where Blatter "regrets" his comments about Ivanov. KlisterOnSkis 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Video sources?

Would it be appropriate to add a few video sources to the page? The linked page is for the Croatia-Australia Yellow card controversy. Ansell 06:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say not. We already have journalistic accounts of the match that describe what happened and the video doesn't tell us anything new. And we wouldn't point to the video as evidence since that would be our own interpretation of the events, and would amount to original research. Plus, there's that sticky issue of copyright that Wikipedia wouldn't want to get into - I think most footy footage available on YouTube are copyvios.Ytny 06:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so they are copyvio's. How is pointing to the video as an original source going to be original research. How can a video, at least of the yellow card incident, be anything but objective? One user was at first questioning on one page whether the 90 minute card was actually shown to the player properly. The video conclusively proves that, even if the official scorecard ignores it. Just my 2c. Ansell 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"How can a video, at least of the yellow card incident, be anything but objective?" You can't be sure it was not edited.--Panairjdde 09:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was talking in general terms about video as a source, that they generally amount to original research. With text sources, there's no argument about what's written, but with video, there's no guarantee of NPOV. Granted, this is a bigger issue in the Cristiano Ronaldo article, where users are posting YouTube videos as "evidence" that he influenced a referee or that he dives, but not so much on this video.

I agree with you that there isn't anything on the video that's open to debate. But I'm not sure what you mean by "properly" showing a card and what the confusion was about. To me, the video shows exactly what the press accounts have told me. Ytny 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That was an enlightening piece of footage actually. It is true that pictures say a thousand words. I would say that clip says a lot more than that. However, back to the point, I think it is dangerous to use them as proofs. Offering them as objective views without using them to backup any statement, if they weren't copyrighted, seems okay to me. If they are not commentated on I would say they are possibly the height of NPOV, depending on whether important parts are cut out of the video. (BTW, I think there is something wrong with my setup, there was no sound, which in one way increases the drama)

The Christiano Ronaldo incident is harder to get down to the facts with at least because he was club teammates with the English players, and the appearance of "that wink" in the video does say something more than a newspaper could ever say. Ansell 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your main point, that video source is helpful when accompanied with commentary. But back to the Simunic-Poll video, I'm missing what was in the video that wasn't clear in the text accounts. I didn't watched the match, and I'll watch the footage again, but I thought the news write ups did a good job of describing the events. Ytny 06:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply to that part of your message. This was the comment I was referring to all along. Hope that helps. Ansell 07:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane

I was wondering if some editors of this article would weigh in on a discussion on the talk page of the Zidane article. There is currently a discussion going on as to whether or not a picture of his receiving a red card in the finals is warranted, as it is the only on-field picture in the entire article. As football fans who have spent their valuable time making sure that this article remains as NPOV as possible, your opinions would be welcome and very helpful in determining consensus. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I got a better image - see Here. I don't think it should be added unless it comes out that it was a result of a racial slur, at which point it should be added. Killfest2 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Zidane getting the golden ball a controversy?203.185.253.18

World Cup Final

Is anyone willing to write up the penalty that was given and the penalty that wasn't given to Malouda, or do the two balance each other out, to make an error free match?203.185.253.18 06:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Italy v Aus.

I removed a sentence about diving from this section (Italy v Aus)seeing as we've had this discussion before... However if you guys feel it's ok then replace it :D

I removed the word controversial as I strongly appose the use of this word in the article (and the title) seeing as it implies a point of view

Possible move / Rename

I was never happy with the name of this article (mostly the word contreversial) and I think some people agree. It suggests an automatic bias in favour of the side (or people) that lost out.

Im not entirely sure what the rename could be! My 'favourite' of the moment would be: FIFA 2006 World Cup dispites as that implies a fair argument from both sides.

What do you lot reckon - I think it really needs to be addressed. If not the article m ight get relisted for deletion later on and we lose all the hard work :( -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I don't mind the word controversial, however you might be right about AFD. I would support "FIFA 2006 World Cup Disputes". KlisterOnSkis 13:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, ditto above.  Killfest2  00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. 'disputes' is more POV than 'controversial'. It also narrows the scope of the article to fights. I suggest we keep with the current name until perhaps a better name is found, which i don't think is possible. MyNameIsNotBob 22:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. "Controversies" is a fine NPOV term that aptly describes the subject matter. The AfD-listing would have taken place regardless of the name, as the disagreement over the viability of the article runs deep to the core of the matter. I agree with MyNameIsNotBob that "disputes" is an inferior choice. Let's keep the article where it is. -- Mareklug ^talk 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment well as the one to nominate it for AFD I can tell you that a major reason was the word controversies. IMO that word suggests that the decision was wrong regardless. The article is written in a certain style - that of; look heres an event that happened in the world cup that people are disagreeing over. But the thing is you are looking at each one from the side of the team that feels hard done by - there is no way of avoiding that because of the nature of the incidents. It's not like anyone can write that Italy find the penalty controversial because they dont' its the Australians that do. As a result the article title makes each event look like it was a wrong dicsion / bad tackl;e etc. which doesn't sit at all. Admittedly disputes does a similar thing but at least it suggests argument rather than backing the hard done by side!! Anyway any other suggestions would be appreciated rather than dismissing a move because I think if someone listed this for a merge to the main article then it would go (just look at the AFD duiscussion).

Incidentally I thought of another possible title: 2006 FIFA World Cup objections, better than disputes but only just. I am sure we can sort something out that is better than conteroversies. -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 11:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that you should check the meaning of the word controversy. It is not what you state it to be above. For example, here is the definition from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: [3]. So you see, it means the same thing as dispute in one of its two meanings. -- Mareklug ^talk 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted, and in fairness I did look it up on wiktionary before I posted that. The thing is saying an event is controversial is tantamount to saying the decision or event was wrong! Im not saying disputes is much better, in fact it is probably worse. All I am trying to suggest is that we try and introduce some form of even sided argument in the title. Like add the word alleged or something similar.

Disagree "Controversies" is fine. --Guinnog 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Objections is more focusing on the people who lost out, while disputes focuses on events, not on the whole picture, which the word controversies can take in. Ansell 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree I believe 'Controversies' is an adequate term. I understand the reasoning behind the proposed change, but so long we take measures to avoid bias from creeping into the various incidients, the title is fine.--Auger Martel 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Italy vs US

Why isn't there anything about Italy and the US, wasn't there something about Eddie Pope or some other player getting an undeserved red card?

Don't know, maybe because he deserved the red card? But maybe you are right, we should add a section and tell how he should have received the red card much earlier.

--Macgreco 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Because that game is only controversial for the US. Attacking your opponent's ankles from above, studs (or cleats) first, is a straight red in any game. A sliding tackle from behind is a bookable foul, and if it's your second caution, off with you.

What the...

Fox Sports News Story about the possibility of the Final being replayed as it is reported that the 4th official used video replays to come to the decision to send Zidane off. I saw the game live, and the 4th official marched purposefully over to a team monitor, then walked straight to the central official and told him what he is alleged to have saw, which in turn caused the central official to raise the red card. Let this story develop, along with the main Zidane story, and maybe in 7-10 days time write a section on it (I will write it, if you like).  Killfest2  00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FIFA did not let Australia-Croatia be repeated, when a Croatian player was sent off after three red cards, do you think it will make the final be repeated?

There was no reason for Australia-Croatia to be repeated, the end result was in the disadvantaged team's favour. The final wasn't. MyNameIsNotBob 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the AUS-CRO game not being replayed is exactly that - Australia was happy with the result, even though technically they could have asked for a replay.  Killfest2  04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. A technical error invalidates the match. When, during the qualification for 2006 WC, in the Uzbekistan - Bahrain match the Japanese referee punished an early entering in the penalty area in occasion of an Uzbek penalty with an indirect free-kick for the defenders, the match was nullified, even if Uzbekistan did not ask for it having won, and the repetition ended 1-1, with Bahrein advancing to the match against Trinidad & Tobago.

The reason why FIFA did not allow AUS-CRO to be repeated is that they had no time to have this match repeated (the winner would have had less time to rest before the Round of 16), there would have been problems of security and of finding a venue and so on. So, since it was clear that it was a technical error and that the match was invalid, they "created" this "rule" that it was on AUS to ask for repetition.

If you want another example of FIFA twisting the rules to its interests, check the red card to Deco issue in this same article.

--Semioli 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems

Ok ths article is getting out of hand, so we managed to sort the NPOV business now we have the problem of references / notes. There are 59 when I last counted which is way too many for an article (WP:REF). Some of the less important ones need to be moved to inline citations (eg just a link) and any 2 that point to the same page should by condensed to one link / ref and moved as a link using the cite tag to a new references section.

Any more than 15 - 20 notes and 5+ references is too many for an article. Thoughts? -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is totally incorrect. There is no official guideline even on the number of references. Conversely, the article needs more references as it still has unreferenced statements. Your thoughts about number of references for articles should be voiced at the appropriate place, and be given the appropriate treatment there. This article needs absolutely all of its references to get the NPOV you speak of. Do not convert any of the references to inline citations, they lose the proper formatting that is recommended for citations. Ansell 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ok I read up on references in full and I see what you mean about Inline referneces however there are definitely too many Footnotes. Altyhough there is no wiki policy on the actual number to acheive something such as WP:FA status there are quite severe guidelines. When creating an article the whole idea surely is to get a balance between enought references and too many. However Ill let you decide that one out (this was only a suggestion I put it rather too strongly maybe).

But note that references have no impact on NPOV - for example you could have a full anf frank reference to the Zidane incident but you could never say 'Zidane's behaviour was abysmal and his sending off was appropriate' even if the source itself says that! References rather are to prove the validity of a statement. For example if you state a controversy then it should get a single NPOV reference, many of the controversies have multiple references that say exactly the same thing - which is probably wrong. THe only time really (IMO) we need multiple references in one controversy is when there is several issues which are not covered in one source and somebody makes a statement - as far as I read WP:REF and the rest that is what we are meant to do! -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: also inline citations are not against policy. Alot of style guides and editors now use harvard referencing which in my opinion is better as you don't end up flicking between the article and footnotes - plus it makes things alot shorter. (see WP:REF for info on Harvard referencing). -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As an example of the references problems: Take the first prargraph of thegraham poll 3 yellow card incident,

• Firstly the first citatione is dead - the daily telegraph page has gone or been moved, there are few links like that si they need to be removed.
• Secondly lets look at the other 2 citations in the first paragraph. The first cite (no 2) is fine, the Toronto Star article is a good NPOV source for the entire incident dealing with all of the statements in the first paragraph. Unfortunately I was expecting (from it's placement) information on the number of yellow required for a sending off - which it isnt, this source is in the wrong place and could be substituted for number 1. The final one (no 3) links to a miami herald article - this I assume is another useful NPOV account of the incident BUT I cant view it as registration is required. It cant be a source. Also there is no need for it at all as a seerate foot note. If all 3 of these articles cwere ok for inclusion (rather than just one) then they should all be as one reference / footnote rather than as 3! That is wikipolicy.

This is just an example of issues throughout the whole article, someone needs to sit down and go through. At the very least removing the broken and other unuseable links.-- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Broken links are not supposed to be removed. They are possibly to be converted to links to the way back machine or a similar service, but they are not to be deleted because they are broken. You claim that you are following wikipolicy but you do not reference where this policy was given by consensus of the community. There are articles with over 70+ citations, and noone has complained about them. Jehovah's Witnesses is a (slightly random but true nonetheless) example of one and I am sure I have seen at least one page with over 150 citations but cannot find it right now.

Why are you so focused on reducing the number of references when the number is the only reason that this article is so stable and neutral currently, specifically because many people are quoted as commenting in different ways.

You will not get your NPOV goal by trimming references because they are broken or you can't view them without some sort of registration or fee. There are people who have access to these public publications and that is enough.

What guidelines are there for having too many references relating to Featured Articles? From looking at the guidelines tbey actually say that references at the bottom should be supported by inline citations. This article focuses entirely on inline citations as the subject area is too immature currently to have any overall publications made on it.

I realise that this was only a suggestion, however, you must be very careful in making claims that are not able to be backed up by policy. If anything you should attempt to discuss this in a policy making place. Ansell 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok :D I wasn't sure about removing citations if the link went so thanks for that. The thing with sources that need registration or even payment the fact that some wikipedians can view them surely doesn't matter, If I came to this article for the first time and wanted to read a reference and it asked me to register and pay then I would move on! If someone passed by checking references I have a sneaking suspicion they would cut out loads of the article slapping unverified over it. I know there is no explicit requirement for all sources to be accessible to all but surely it is good practice - such sources surely should only be used if there is not other source for the information! (which in this case I am sure there are a few).

As to wiki policy I am avoiding getting into suggesting or discussing them again, I have some opinions that alot of people don't like so.... However to substantiate what I said earlier. ALthough there are no set guidelines to the number of footnotes for FA alot of the regular voters will oppose an article with alot. You jehovas witness example probably wouldn't make FA status (even if the rest of the article was perfect).

As Jimbo has said wikipeida (dont kill me but I cant find the link to the persons who's userpage I saw it quoted on :D ) needs more sources but that fewer better established sources are better than a long list of generic ones. I personally dont see the point of including 2 sources (that are both newspaper articles and say exactly the same thing) in 2 references when putting both in 1 will do.

If it is a newspaper article as reference I normally just use a harvard reference at the end of the line (Telegraph July 2006) which links to the article in question. Im not trying to change what youve done but just suggesting a way to make it different and try and cut the length of the notes section.

Sorry also if all of what I wrote came across a bit ratty but Im bored and hot (33 degrees Plus I think) and having trouble thinking straight. :D still Assuming good faith though dont worry :D -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least we both got down a summary of our thoughts in a civil good faith manner, even if we did take a (few) thousand words to do so.

In summary, I agree that if you do find two references and one is from a biased (possibly because it is nationalistic) source, and the other comments on a situation in a different, more neutral, way, then you should attempt to combine them, without losing the implicit neutrality provided by multiple commentators on an event.

I would support an attempt to develop a more regular, possibly alphabetised, set of references, in addition to what is really now a "Notes" section, as described in the quotation below.

Also, excuse me for making an example out of the FA guidelines, I have never got into them in a practical way other than reading through them for future reference. Ansell 11:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok, it was my fault for not thinking as I wrote, anyway what you are suggesting sounds ok - and I think probably what I was trying to get at from the start but got losrt in a little world of my own :D -- Errant  ^talk(formerly tmorton166) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"

It is helpful when footnotes are used that a References section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used." from [4] Ansell 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel an over-aching desire to weigh in on this discussion to explain a few causes for the problems listed above as I am directly responsible for their existence. When I first started editing this article it used entirely inline citations. My editing habits have leaned away from using inline citations for the primary reason that they do not include an access date, which addresses one of the issues above to do with no longer being able to access articles. This is the academic approach to this problem.

I should note my process for writing the parts of the article that I worked on. What I did was take the issue and use news.google.com to search for references for it and did the awfully laborious task of reading through all the articles for relevant facts or quotations (which is why i never finished). This has meant that there are perhaps more references than needed in the article. I did try and avoid using, as much as practical, references with nationalistic bias. This also proved to be one of the reasons I ceased moving through the article as I reached the US vs Ghana game in which news.google.com has no way of ignoring US publications, which resulted in copious (some 900 articles) to sort through.

I must go sleep now, will address the issues a little more later. MyNameIsNotBob 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)